On 8/20/13 12:07 PM, Ajo Fod wrote:
> My 2c worth. It seems like there is a general bottleneck. A lot of ideas
> don't get used because there is a hurdle that people have to make change
> that satisfy all code requirements like tests/reuse of blocks etc. This
> makes for a larger than necessary hur
On 8/21/13 3:07 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Hello,
>
> "but those who propose it must be ready to perform a _committer_ work"
>
> I wonder if this is correct, this is after all (a somewhat annoyingly broad)
> discussion list. If somebody suggest a new API/Structure and backs it up even
> with so
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Then you just clone it as you
> would clone any repositories and provide a link to your own repository.
> If I remember well, Evan just did that a few days ago.
>
And you can do with it as you will.
Build a prototype without tests to make
Le 22/08/2013 06:27, James Ring a écrit :
> Seems to me that a more distributed change control system like git would
> allow would-be contributors to put their code up for scrutiny without
> having to create sandbox projects and the like.
You can already do it this way if you want. Look at
http://
I agree with James that this is a problem that git has already solved.
For the changes I'm working on I have already cloned from the git
mirror and plan to upload the patch as a fork + pull request on github.
I think the "branchyness" of distributed version control makes it easy
to have several
On 22 August 2013 05:27, James Ring wrote:
> Seems to me that a more distributed change control system like git would
> allow would-be contributors to put their code up for scrutiny without
> having to create sandbox projects and the like.
>
> If enough people get behind some patches, they could i
Seems to me that a more distributed change control system like git would
allow would-be contributors to put their code up for scrutiny without
having to create sandbox projects and the like.
If enough people get behind some patches, they could iterate faster and get
it checked into the mainline fa
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:07:51 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Hello,
"but those who propose it must be ready to perform a _committer_
work"
I wonder if this is correct, this is after all (a somewhat annoyingly
broad) discussion list.
You seem to answer that below ("nobody can expect such draft
Hello,
"but those who propose it must be ready to perform a _committer_ work"
I wonder if this is correct, this is after all (a somewhat annoyingly broad)
discussion list. If somebody suggest a new API/Structure and backs it up even
with some working proof of concept code (which better explains
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:42:09 -0700, Ajo Fod wrote:
Good for you...
Yes just imagine if I'd to get every fix through committers. I'd
never get
anything done here.
Not every fix; commit to start with one.
I've spent a _lot_ of time detailing what you could do to go forward
with the issues whic
+1
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:42, Ajo Fod wrote:
>
> I hope you'll agree that as it stands, this makes CM capable of only
> solving a subset the mathematical problems of what it can solve with a more
> open policy.
>
> The argument for alternative designs of the API is great to
Good for you...
Yes just imagine if I'd to get every fix through committers. I'd never get
anything done here.
> On the subject of this thread: I did not imply that an "experimental"
> package would allow sloppy or undocumented code or bypass unit testing.
> All (the above) things being equal, t
Before someone spend time rewriting the whole package, wouldn't we want the
ability to comment on a skeleton design that might not pass unit tests?
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013, Gilles wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:55:51 -0700, Ajo Fod wrote:
>
>> I agree that in general test are necessary to en
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:55:51 -0700, Ajo Fod wrote:
I agree that in general test are necessary to ensure that something
useful
is being accomplished by the submitted code as I'd mentioned in my
mail.
I admire the rigour of tests in CM. There was one case where I didn't
know
what needs be teste
I agree that in general test are necessary to ensure that something useful
is being accomplished by the submitted code as I'd mentioned in my mail.
I admire the rigour of tests in CM. There was one case where I didn't know
what needs be tested and I didn't see the point in taking it further since
On the point of tests: Considering tests a hurdle is the wrong way to look
at it. Tests are the foundation I can confidently build on and change code.
Gary
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Ajo Fod wrote:
> My 2c worth. It seems like there is a general bottleneck. A lot of ideas
> don't get use
My 2c worth. It seems like there is a general bottleneck. A lot of ideas
don't get used because there is a hurdle that people have to make change
that satisfy all code requirements like tests/reuse of blocks etc. This
makes for a larger than necessary hurdle for people to contribute.
Looks like Gi
17 matches
Mail list logo
